Pages

Freedom of Religion - Freedom from Religion - Freedom of Public Display of Religion and Traditions

We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief.-- Ronald Reagan (Temple Hillel Speech, 1984)

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Suppressio Veri : Tolerance or Submission?

Christianity has evolved in terms of
its church doctrine and Christian theocracy is extinct. Witches no
longer are burned at the stake nor does the Inquisition no longer
exist. The general concept is to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who even stopped a stoning session against a woman accused
of adultery. He did this not just on a humanitarian level, but to
emphasize that it is better to change a person other ways than
punishment by being stoned to death. He was more concerned about spirtuality than materialism.

Islam evolved in some ways and a good
example of such is the Republic of Turkey whose first Turkish president, Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk
(1881-1938) modernized Turkey (Turkeii), separated religion
from the affairs of the state, promoted tolerance, outlawed the
wearing of the veil for women, instituted a Western government
complete with a parliament, and modified the penal code after the
Italian Penal Code, provided freedom for women, reformed the
educational system that included changing written language from
Arabic to a Latin alphabet. He also instituted the State Art and
Sculpture Museum which highlighted sculpture, forbidden in Islamic
traditions as idolatry. Atatürk
used the advice of Dewey in teaching methods at primary educational
levels, establishing gender equality and making it important for
females to be educated. He also orchestrated the translation of
scientific terminology into Turkish. It became a model of what an
Islamic state could be with a much lower rate of illiteracy than
other Islamic states. Even the Qur'an was published in the Turkish
language, rather than Arabic; some editions having both like the
Egyptian 1938 publication of Arabic and English Qur'an. The first
Turkish operatic work was commissioned in 1934 and in the same year granted
full political rights to women, beyond the previous law that provided
equal rights in marriage. Indeed, in the 1935 elections, there were 18 female MPs out of a total of 395
representatives – more than the nine in the British House of Commons and six in the US
House of Representatives. Atatürk's
foreign policy was “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”.

The point of all
this is that Muslims CAN live in peace with its neighbors and as long
as Islam is not a theocracy, separated from civic laws and state
business. It can be a religion of tolerance, to a point. For example,
there are Christians and Jews in Turkey – but no religion can
publicly solicit – like passing out flyers to convert people, for
example. Other than that, Christians and Jews are not harassed and
being Turkish citizens they have all the rights of the Muslim
majority.

Recent political
pressures may change that, but Turkey is not part of what horrors are
occurring elsewhere in Islamic nations.

In the United
States and Europe, politicians insist that Islam is a religion of
peace. It could be if the majority were not still insisting upon
theocracy and a dogma/doctrine still in the 7th
century. They have chosen not to go the way that Turkey had when it
gained independence and the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.

President Obama
has told us and in foreign speeches that ISIS (Islamic State) “is not Islamic” because its “actions
represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith”. He states
that “we are not at war with Islam but with the people who have
perverted Islam”.

Daniel Pipes provides a list
of politicians side-stepping the issue from American leadership:

Secretary of
State John Kerry echoes him: ISISconsists
of "coldblooded killers masquerading as a religious movement"
who promote a "hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam."
His spokesperson, Jen Psaki, goes further: the terrorists "are enemies of Islam."

Jeh Johnson, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, assents: "ISIS
is not Islamic." My favorite: Howard
Dean, the former Democrat governor of Vermont, says of the
Charlie Hebdo
attackers, "They're about as Muslim as I am."

The same diatribe
comes from our European counterparts of Western Civilization.

Summarizing
these statements, which come straight out of the Islamist playbook:
Islam is purely a religion of peace, so violence and barbarism
categorically have nothing to do with it; indeed, these "masquerade"
and "pervert" Islam. By implication, more Islam is needed
to solve these "monstrous" and "barbaric"
problems. But,
of course, this interpretation neglects the scriptures of Islam and
the history of Muslims, steeped in the assumption of superiority
toward non-Muslims and the righteous violence of jihad.
Ironically, ignoring the Islamic impulse means foregoing the best
tool to defeat jihadism: for, if the problem results not from an
interpretation of Islam, but from random evil and irrational
impulses, how can one possibly counter it? Only acknowledging the
legacy of Islamic imperialism opens ways to re-interpret the faith's scriptures in
modern, moderate, and good-neighborly ways.

Simply put, it is
because Islamic clerical leadership that is also part of the civic
leadership refuse to move beyond the 7th
century. The Christian clerical hierarchy went against what Jesus of
Nazareth, the Christ, had taught. He was a reformer, spiritual and
doctrinal. He did not try to do away with the traditional holy days
and feasts, but did away with the practice of sacrificing lambs and
used words instead of stones to make a person see their sinful ways.

Daniel Pipeswrote
that there are two major reasons why politicians refuse to accept or pretend
something is that isn't when it comes to the subject of Islam:

First, they
want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone to violence
if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a "war on Islam."
Second, they worry that focusing on Muslims means fundamental changes
to the secular order, while denying an Islamic element permits avoid
troubling issues. For example, it permits airplane security to look for passengers'
weapons rather than engage in Israeli-style interrogations.

Pipes also
predicts:

Denial will
continue unless violence increases. In retrospect, the 3,000 victims
of 9/11 did not shake non-Muslim complacency. The nearly 30,000 fatalities from Islamist terrorism since then also have
not altered the official line. Perhaps 300,000 dead will cast aside
worries about Islamist sensibilities and a reluctance to make
profound social changes, replacing these with a determination to
fight a radical utopian ideology; three million dead will surely
suffice.

In other words,
politicians tend to wait until the matter is so extreme it is hard to
address and more costly if war is involved. Too often, as we can see
in our own history, we have waited until the enemy has grown so
strong no choice is given. In this case, the enemy is already here,
(and in Europe) working its way into our system. Sharia law is not
Turkish law, and for good reason.

Israel has a right
to exist and our leadership or the leadership of Europe should not
take the side of the enemy of free nations at the expense of Israel.
One would think after World War II that anti-semitism would have
become extinct. The United Nations is at fault, in part, in that
respect – it is being overtaken by tyrants and Islamists whose goal
is a global central government officiated by the United Nations,
whose national representatives are not elected by the people. The UN
has caused more harm that it has done good.

There are
'radicals' who call themselves 'Christian' – individuals and small
sects; however Christianity does not promote genocide and while they
may tell someone that a certain action is 'sinful', they do not rape,
torture, and murder that person or persons that commits sin (Ten
Commandments). Yet, Christians are constantly rebuked and persecuted
(certainly not tolerant); and our leadership here in a nation that is
supposed to be a role model for freedom and the “land of the free
and home of the brave” are groveling to a religious group whose
actions constantly seen in the news to be evil beyond imagination.
That religious group uses its doctrine of Jihad, which is nothing but
a religious excuse for conquest, to justify those evil actions.
Christians and Jews are being murdered in horrific ways in other
places, but our leadership has turned its head when terrorist cells,
Jihad training camps, and subversive institutions that are allowed to
operate in our country. It is delusional and cowardice not to prevent the enemy of free nations to be
allowed to build up strength and political clout here in our
homeland.

The United States
was the first nation that provided the right of religious freedom in
our First Amendment. But those rights are only valid for tolerant and
non-violent religions. If a religion has practices or doctrine that
counters another liberty, then it is null and void. For example, if
an organization or group decides that their religion calls for the
sacrifice of virgins. Should that be tolerated? No. Religion does not
give anyone the right to murder.

So why is our
government putting up with what is happening here? Why does the media whitewash the violent deeds of these evil persons?

Why are they not
in outrage over what is happening to Christians in other places,
occurring in nations that are part of the United Nations membership?

It is time for
strong, sensible leadership that if war is the only answer to
eradicate such evil, et it be waged swiftly and with the intent to
end it in victory. War should be the last action after all possible
methods have been tried; but in this case national leadership here in
Europe falsely think that pacifism is going to provide incentive.
When it comes to evil, it only strengthens their resolve and
determination to eradicate everything that represents good.

President Obama,
in one of his most insane remarks, stated that Islam was fundamental
from the beginning of our nation's creation. It is an example how
progressives rewrite history, like all despotic political factions,
to match their political and social ideology. I am sure I was not
alone when my stomach turned when watching and hearing our president
state such an untruth.

Our nation was
conceived under Christian-Judaic principles, but the Founders knew
the dangers of a theocracy or anything resembling it. Thus the words
in the First
Amendment concerning religion:

Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof
…

We
establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command
no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we
remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we
leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe;
all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must
be free to speak of and act on their belief.

Any religion,
religious people, or religious entities who are intolerant cannot
expect tolerance in return. Any religion that promotes violence in
the name of that religion cannot be tolerated in a free society,
especially in the United States that has constitutional law; and can only expect intolerance and retribution in return.

What part of this
cannot be understood by the apologetics within our federal
government?